Saturday, October 15, 2005

Liturgy on Demand?

It's a weekend morning and there's nothing to do. And so, Rock blogs again....

There's been a bit of controversy in some quarters over a recent directive from Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton. In a pastoral letter issued last week, Martino -- the smartest person you will ever meet, ever, and one of the sweetest to boot -- reinforced the canonical provision that a priest is to celebrate but one Mass a day, two with permission of the competent authority and, in extreme cases, three on Sundays and holy days of obligation (again, with the consent of his superior). As he put it:
So august is God’s gift of the Eucharist, so important is the spiritual preparation for it, so careful and attentive must its celebration be, and so essential the thanksgiving to be made afterward as priests carry forth its grace to the rest of their ministry, that the multiplication of this central act in a priest’s daily life runs the risk of diminishing the value he places on it. Such a danger imperils the whole community of faith along with its priest. The law, therefore, is not an arbitrary one. It provides an essential means of fostering the holiness of the Church’s faithful.
But some conservatives have taken to having a conniption about the church's ancient law and are taking it out on Bishop Martino, accusing him of manufacturing a priest shortage, encouraging laziness, being arbitrary, and one zealot went so far as to call him a clown.

I have to ask: Am I missing something here? Because, per usual, Joe Martino's so right on this one, and his critics are, per usual, so terribly off the mark. And this is the audience that should love the man -- not many bishops find it terribly imperative to write a pastoral letter on chastity, but Martino did.

You don't need me to tell you that a great many priests these days are overworked and overburdened, and anyone who isn't is almost an anomaly. But the criticism of the good bishop's move seems to manifest an undercurrent that the function of the priest is solely to be a sacrament dispenser -- that ministering to the sick, the aged, the grief-stricken, the poor, et al. is wishy-washy and he's only really performing his ministry when you can get a Host out of him, like some kind of vending machine you put an envelope into. Talk about spoilt laity with a deficient understanding of priesthood.

I've never been one for Masses where the priest runs at auctioneer speed. And when Joe Martino talks about the necessity of adequate preparation, he knows what he's talking about. There used to be a sign in our Seminary sacristy here that says, "Say this Mass as if it were your First Mass, your last Mass, your only Mass." And when it's one liturgy lined up after another, that preparation (both internally and in terms of the ars celebrandi) can often get sloppy. That doesn't serve the celebrant or the faithful well at all, does it now?

A great amount of hubbub has come up on the issue of Saturdays. Martino himself addresses this
Saturdays present us with a special challenge in this matter. Since it is a weekday, each priest, even with the special permission, may celebrate only two Masses. Parishes will therefore be obliged to rethink their priorities. Should the Saturday weekday morning Mass be eliminated in favor of a Saturday evening vigil Mass? Can nuptial Masses be scheduled on Friday evening instead of Saturday? Need every Church have a Saturday vigil Mass? Can neighboring parishes cooperate in the design of Mass schedules that will provide reasonable availability of Mass for all living in a particular area?
Guess what, campers -- this is a question that really needs to be thought about in a lot of places. But here's something: I've been to more than my fair share of weddings where the bride and groom are having the Nuptial Mass solely because it's what their parents had and their parents before them; one bride, I'm sad to say, memorably chewed gum through the whole first half of her Wedding Mass. I can't tell you how appalled I was, but nobody else seemed to give a fig.

In these cases -- where it's the first time the couple have actively participated in an ecclesiastical function since their Confirmation -- the Liturgy of the Word option could and should well be used as a substitute. To immediately go for the Mass option at the expense of the rest of the community could be seen as a devaluation of the Eucharist, almost a liturgical abuse. And the couple probably wouldn't gripe anyway, as they'd get more time for post-wedding posing for the photographer.

That's one down.... Comments?

-30-

10 Comments:

Blogger Zadok the Roman said...

Bravo for Bishop Martino!
Given that the particular canon is almost universally ignored to the detriment of the dignity of the sacrament and the spiritual welfare of priests, it'll make it much easier for clergy to resist the unreasonable expectations of some members of the faithful and fellow clerics.

15/10/05 09:57  
Blogger Todd said...

Another thumbs up for Martino.

Regarding weddings, where did the rule emerge that the wedding Mass had to be a extra one? It would seem that a pastor can offer this option: if you want to get married at a Mass, do so at a regularly scheduled parish liturgy.

If couples opt for a liturgy of the word outside of Mass, that begs the preparation question as well: a priest still needs to prepare a homily.

But the anti-Martino howling reveals the soft underbelly of many Catholic conservatives: "It's about me and my sacramental needs!" How narcissistic and gauche!

15/10/05 11:33  
Blogger Fred said...

Wow! I truly like Todd's comment that Saturday evening Mass could be both a wedding Mass and a public Mass. Even so, I think it would be great if the wedding couple could have a strong participation in the planning of the Mass. Some things would be lost: for example the choice of special readings, but other things would be gained - including a restoration of the public, communal value of marriage.

15/10/05 12:35  
Blogger Todd said...

For the record, my wife and I exchanged our wedding vows at a Saturday night Mass. The pastor gave us the option of putting a "wedding reading" in place of the epistle of the day (an acceptable liturgical practice for ordinary Sundays), but we chose to stick with the whole set of Sunday readings.

The only "extra" we suggested was to place a dialogue form of the baptismal vows/Creed immediately after the homily, but before the Rite of Marriage to underscore the connection described in the Rite (no. 23) "Christ ... has already consecrated you in baptism ... "

I'd never suggest to a couple something I wasn't willing to do myself. I've been to three or four such weddings, but sadly, none since my own.

15/10/05 14:50  
Blogger Disgusted in DC said...

When I visited the Czestochowa shrine in Poland, there was a wedding going on while there was a hubub of visitors and pilgrims noisily milling about and - I think - a public mass was said afterwards. Americans would never tolerate such a thing.

15/10/05 15:13  
Blogger Amy Welborn said...

On Dom's blog where they are discussing this, someone mentioned the practice in some Latin American - and perhaps other - countries - of having group weddings. No, not Moonie - Catholic. Good idea, as is a Saturday Vigil liturgy.

A priest of my acquaintance, ahem, told me of once having to preside at 10 Masses one weekend. I think it was one Satuday AM, 2 weddings, 1 Saturday night vigil, 5 Sunday parish liturgies and one nursing home Mass. It was, obviously a huge parish, and for some reason, he ended up the only guy on duty that weekend.

15/10/05 17:49  
Blogger Fr Martin Fox said...

I agree with the bishop.

One comment: having a non-Mass wedding liturgy, instead of a Mass, is only some relief for the priest. Having a Friday evening wedding, or the Saturday Vigil Mass be the wedding, would be more help.

15/10/05 19:39  
Blogger David L Alexander said...

Scrantonpriest et al:

If couples are discouraged from having a Mass with their wedding vows, which is the norm when both parties are Catholic, you would have an instance where a lower authority is placing a restriction on that which a higher authority allows -- in fact, calls for.

I don't live in the Scranton diocese, so I'm not intimate with this problem. But it seems from my vantage point that more than one canonical cunundrum is being raised by this decree. I trust the good bishop has thought this through.

16/10/05 13:25  
Blogger Todd said...

Papabile, neither then are married couples baby-making consortia.

The problem is not in the quantity of lives (or life) but in its spiritual quality. Spirituality and earthly economics make for a bad combination.

Agreed with the point that limiting numbers of Masses is not just so the priest can enjoy some down time with a cigar and a martini. One suggestion I'd make is one hour of preparation for every minute of the Sunday homily.

16/10/05 21:54  
Blogger David L Alexander said...

Papabile et al:

First of all, glad to hear you're alright. Maybe you can take possession of your weblog eventually. If you needed a vacation, couldn't you just say so?

Now then, rest assured, we all "get it" just fine. It's one thing for fallen-away Catholcs to expect a Mass with their wedding. But it is a matter of universal law that when both parties are Catholics, a Nuptial Mass is expected. They used to do a lot of things in the old days, which they stopped doing even by the "golden age" of the 1950s.

The good bishop may be trying to address a legitimate problem. But in the process, he's creating another one, which is no more likely to go away.

The upshot is, he's still got a problem.

18/10/05 08:42  

Post a Comment

<< Home